Appeal No. 98-1243
Application No. 08/679,939
The examiner has set forth a second rejection, in which
claims 10-12 are rejected on the basis of Anderson in view of
Mueller. Independent claim 11 requires that there be a
mechanical coupling that releases in the same manner as was
explained above with regard to claim 10.
Anderson discloses a rolling door, and is directed to
solving the problem of binding of the door during raising and
lowering when forces such as high winds cause it to distend
laterally to its plane (see Figure 3). The reference solves
this problem by providing rollers 46 that bear against
vertical surfaces 38 when the door is distended, rather than
the surface of the door itself. This significantly reduces
the friction during operation of the door. There is no
concern in Anderson for disengaging the edges of the door to
protect the mechanism in the face of high winds or collision
by vehicles.
Mueller has been discussed above with regard to the first
rejection. As was the case there, it is our opinion that even
if suggestion to combine the references in the manner proposed
by the examiner existed, the result would not be the claimed
invention, because neither reference teaches a rupturable
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007